Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+80\s+meter\s+vertical\s+suggestion\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+80\s+meter\s+vertical\s+suggestion\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 80 meter vertical suggestion (score: 1): Author: FireBrick" <w9ol@billnjudy.com (FireBrick); Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:22:06 -0600; Ok Antennanites. Limited space. My best chance is putting a vertical on my non attached garage roof. That would make the base about 18 feet off the ground. I could mount it directly to the roof a the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00574.html (8,273 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] 80 meter vertical suggestion (score: 1): Author: ac7nj@yahoo.com (Randall Williamson); Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:45:30 -0800; Raised verticals require tuned radials or a grid type ground ie a metal roof or a screen with sufficient surface area to radiate a image of the vertical element. The power lines in the ally sounded l; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00576.html (9,960 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] 80 meter vertical suggestion (score: 1): Author: htodd@twofifty.com (Hisashi T Fujinaka); Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:32:21 -0800 (PST); You shouldn't need tuned radials if you use a lot of them that aren't 1/2 wavelength long. If you think about it, they're all some impedance, and in parallel. Of course, cut to the right length is be; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00577.html (12,027 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] 80 meter vertical suggestion (score: 1): Author: ve7hcb@rac.ca (Chris BONDE); Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:48:38 -0800; I have power lines higher than my droopy loaded dipole. I have been thinking about a 21ft sq hoizontal receiving antenna with a vertical antenna in the middle. I have been wondering about the radials; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-02/msg00580.html (11,874 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]